From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
|
* My mistake RE 5x. My NPOV concern is that neutrality is based on presentation of all POVs as substantiated in reliable sources. If all of the sources are passing mentions, it’s hard to say whether you’re capturing all POVs on the subject. RE sourcing, corporate websites don’t necessarily fact check and the source is being used in the article for more than the hook fact. DYK requires each paragraph cite to a reliable source. I maintain that this hook is a mundane fact that is not interesting. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC) |
* My mistake RE 5x. My NPOV concern is that neutrality is based on presentation of all POVs as substantiated in reliable sources. If all of the sources are passing mentions, it’s hard to say whether you’re capturing all POVs on the subject. RE sourcing, corporate websites don’t necessarily fact check and the source is being used in the article for more than the hook fact. DYK requires each paragraph cite to a reliable source. I maintain that this hook is a mundane fact that is not interesting. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
**Your comment on capturing all POVs would make sense if this were a controversial subject where people have different takes on it. Can’t see how that applies here, first time in my over 100 DYK’s this comes up, so I don’t even know what POV you would expect here. As for reliability of its website, of course a mining company would know exactly how much was extracted, this is not some subjective claim. Anyway, I will prepare an alternate hook, but still seeking 2nd opinion. [[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] — ”'[[User:P199|<span style=”color: #199199;”>P 1 9 9</span>]]”’ <big>[[User talk:P199|✉]]</big> 20:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC) |
**Your comment on capturing all POVs would make sense if this were a controversial subject where people have different takes on it. Can’t see how that applies here, first time in my over 100 DYK’s this comes up, so I don’t even know what POV you would expect here. As for reliability of its website, of course a mining company would know exactly how much was extracted, this is not some subjective claim. Anyway, I will prepare an alternate hook, but still seeking 2nd opinion. [[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] — ”'[[User:P199|<span style=”color: #199199;”>P 1 9 9</span>]]”’ <big>[[User talk:P199|✉]]</big> 20:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
*** No problem. If I’m wrong, another reviewer will correct me. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC) |
|||
|
}}<!–Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.–> |
}}<!–Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.–> |
||
Latest revision as of 21:07, 17 October 2025
Gowganda
- … that 60.2 million ounces of silver and 1.3 million pounds of cobalt have been extracted from mines around Gowganda in Ontario, Canada?
- Source: Reference #8 (Gowganda Historical Background)
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
Overall: 
- Not an accurate review:
- New enough: Expansion is not counting overall article size but prose size. Using DYK Check, pre-expansion prose was 245 characters, now it is 2149 characters (almost 9-fold increase).
- Adequate sourcing: That is not policy, nor a reasonable position to say that corporate sources are unreliable. It may be true that some companies will exaggerate their accomplishments, but this is a statistic about all mines there, which this company will know better than anyone else.
- Neutral: This refers to WP:NPOV in the article, not the sources. Even so, the sources (very typical for such places) are used to validate statements, not to prove notability, and moreover, the offline book Our Timiskaming does have an in-depth chapter on Gowganda.
- Cited: This checkbox is not about sources, but whether or not the hook is in the article and cited. It is.
- Interesting: This is subjective of course, but obviously not all hooks are going to be spectacular, you have to consider this in the context of the subject. In any case, I’m always open to suggestions.
- My mistake RE 5x. My NPOV concern is that neutrality is based on presentation of all POVs as substantiated in reliable sources. If all of the sources are passing mentions, it’s hard to say whether you’re capturing all POVs on the subject. RE sourcing, corporate websites don’t necessarily fact check and the source is being used in the article for more than the hook fact. DYK requires each paragraph cite to a reliable source. I maintain that this hook is a mundane fact that is not interesting. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Your comment on capturing all POVs would make sense if this were a controversial subject where people have different takes on it. Can’t see how that applies here, first time in my over 100 DYK’s this comes up, so I don’t even know what POV you would expect here. As for reliability of its website, of course a mining company would know exactly how much was extracted, this is not some subjective claim. Anyway, I will prepare an alternate hook, but still seeking 2nd opinion.
- No problem. If I’m wrong, another reviewer will correct me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Your comment on capturing all POVs would make sense if this were a controversial subject where people have different takes on it. Can’t see how that applies here, first time in my over 100 DYK’s this comes up, so I don’t even know what POV you would expect here. As for reliability of its website, of course a mining company would know exactly how much was extracted, this is not some subjective claim. Anyway, I will prepare an alternate hook, but still seeking 2nd opinion.
